I didn’t read the whole but, in my opinion, if I knew that my kid would have Down syndrome or any other brain dysfuction, and I knew it before it was born, abortion would be my only choice. I lack the patience to grow up a kid with special needs, and I congratulate those who can, but I simply can’t.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wiki can be used to prove anything. But you are wrong to think that evolution tends to favor traits beneficial to groups. It does no such thing.[/quote]
Double, you are wrong beyond belief on this matter. Evolution happens ON A POPULATION LEVEL!!! Take any textbook you want and look it up. No biologist (and I am one) is going to talk to another about “individual evolution” because such as thing DOES NOT EXIST (except for epigenetics which is new and way beyond the scope of this conversation)!!!
I cannot believe such a gross misunderstanding of evolution is possible. Evolution favors traits beneficial to population survival and hence the individuals that bare those traits have the most reproductive success, which is measured by number of genes found many, many generations down the line, not just one. These individuals are favored because they benefit the group .
My head is going to explode.
[/quote]
How does this make eugenics a good thing?[/quote]
Not on a population level. I already covered this. You actually weaken the population when one person decides by their own short-sighted logic to completely eliminate a variation. From a numbers standpoint, you need variation. By this same argument, you need some people to chose one way and others to chose another because one answer is not always going to work for every situation that might be encountered.
How did this turn into an evolution debate? What does the topic have to do with evolution? The species isn’t going anywhere, aborting down syndrome children or not. The debate is over the vileness of it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wow. Just, wow.[/quote]
No shit. This is about as far as I can stomach of this thread.
Forget tipping their hands, some here are just throwing their cards down on the table and saying “Fuck it, just look.”
We don’t need eugenics to for the species to survive. Complete non argument.
[quote]kamui wrote:
any regulation ?
so, no need for information, prevention, alternative propositions, promotion of other solutions, noncoercive detterence, etc ?
or just no repression/prosecution against women because they are women ?
[/quote]
I’m just saying that all of these have been tried and failed because the drive to abort comes from a fear of not being able to survive in some way.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How did this turn into an evolution debate? What does the topic have to do with evolution? The species isn’t going anywhere, aborting down syndrome children or not. The debate is over the vileness of it.[/quote]
No one is arguing that it isn’t vile. But what does that matter?
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wiki can be used to prove anything. But you are wrong to think that evolution tends to favor traits beneficial to groups. It does no such thing.[/quote]
Double, you are wrong beyond belief on this matter. Evolution happens ON A POPULATION LEVEL!!! Take any textbook you want and look it up. No biologist (and I am one) is going to talk to another about “individual evolution” because such as thing DOES NOT EXIST (except for epigenetics which is new and way beyond the scope of this conversation)!!!
I cannot believe such a gross misunderstanding of evolution is possible. Evolution favors traits beneficial to population survival and hence the individuals that bare those traits have the most reproductive success, which is measured by number of genes found many, many generations down the line, not just one. These individuals are favored because they benefit the group .
My head is going to explode.
For example: your lion analogy is a good example of gene flow. A stronger male lion came into the group, wiped out the weaker genes of the previous male, and provided stronger genes for the group. The new male genes make the entire group stronger, which gives the group better reproductive success. [/quote]
Even if the old lion just got old?
So, now prides are the groups you are talking about where evolution takes place? Because I was thinking that it would be on much larger areas of population. But you are saying it is on a pride level? In fact the population grouping is somewhat arbitrary. But this is besides the point, because the male kills the kids because they don’t have his individual genetic material and doing so benefits him as an individual. It may or may not benefit the group. Hell, the new male could be infertile for all that is known and it could destroy the pride altogether.
Evolutions results must be viewed on a population level. It does not take place there. You are directly contradicting your own wiki article at this point.
Even the first statement in the article notes: “Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.” It notes that when they are talking about populations they are referring to INDIVIDUALS that make up a grouping.
Here’s the underlying thing driving the eugenics crap in here. And it applies to the Uganda thread, too. The species will survive DS children, abortion or not. It’s nonsense to come up with some ‘survival’ argument. The real impetus here is that someone has decided HOW humanity should survive.
They have made value judgments, including, one that excludes the full human worth of the those with Down Syndrome, in order to concoct some goal for a more perfect race of man. This is scientism. And it is ugly.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s the underlying thing driving the eugenics crap in here. And it applies to the Uganda thread, too. The species will survive DS children, abortion or not. It’s nonsense to come up with some ‘survival’ argument. The real impetus here is that someone has decided HOW humanity should survive.
They have made value judgments, including, one that excludes the full human worth of the those with Down Syndrome, in order to concoct some goal for a more perfect race of man. This is scientism. And it is ugly. [/quote]
And on the inverse you have decided for other people what they are enslaved to. In bringing these children into the world you leave them as a burden to those of us who do not want to care for them. That is wrong.
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s the underlying thing driving the eugenics crap in here. And it applies to the Uganda thread, too. The species will survive DS children, abortion or not. It’s nonsense to come up with some ‘survival’ argument. The real impetus here is that someone has decided HOW humanity should survive.
They have made value judgments, including, one that excludes the full human worth of the those with Down Syndrome, in order to concoct some goal for a more perfect race of man. This is scientism. And it is ugly. [/quote]
And on the inverse you have decided for other people what they are enslaved to. In bringing these children into the world you leave them as a burden to those of us who do not want to care for them. That is wrong.[/quote]
I hate to point this out, but the leading cause of children is fucking. So if you really don’t want children, don’t fuck. If you cannot handle the potential consequences of a behavior then avoid the behavior.
“In bringing these children into the world you leave them as a burden to those of us who do not want to care for them.” ← Fuckin’ A…WOW!
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wow. Just, wow.[/quote]
No shit. This is about as far as I can stomach of this thread.
Forget tipping their hands, some here are just throwing their cards down on the table and saying “Fuck it, just look.”[/quote]
LOL! Yup. At least they are being honest?? Is that the positive? DS kids aren’t worthy of life and would be just as well if dead? Black people in Africa are dumb so fuck them??
Of course then at the same time they will Iraq war and scream “Abomination!”
Kill the retarded people! WOW!
[quote]niksamaras wrote:
I didn’t read the whole but, in my opinion, if I knew that my kid would have Down syndrome or any other brain dysfuction, and I knew it before it was born, abortion would be my only choice. I lack the patience to grow up a kid with special needs, and I congratulate those who can, but I simply can’t.[/quote]
Just don’t claim and moral high ground ever, and don’t dare ever call yourself a man and we’re cool.
Now, let see if i could get some practical advices from this thread :
Mrs Kamui has multiple sclerosis.
Should i break up with her before she become too much of a burden or should i kill her for the betterment of the specie ?
Abortion rates litteraly exploded when we stopped trying these. So it seems that, during centuries, the fear of being prosecuted and/or socially condemned has been somehow stronger than the hardwired ‘fear of not being able to survive’ with a baby.
niksamaras sounds to me that you need alot of growing up to do. Your willing to have sex but not man up to your responsibilities reeks of a coward. Your the one bitching about you being too good for your soccer team as goalie?
What if your child was born and you found out afterwards would you kill him or her? By Rhonyn and ur logic anyone useless to society should be sent to the gas chambers correct? Who gets to decide that ever thought about that. You sorry bastards.
And like Pat said please do not try to walk the high moral road especially when you just stated that you are willing to kill a baby just because you do not have patience.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Now, let see if i could get some practical advices from this thread :
Mrs Kamui has multiple sclerosis.
Should i break up with her before she become too much of a burden or should i kill her for the betterment of the specie ?
[/quote]
Both, the order doesn’t much matter…
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wiki can be used to prove anything. But you are wrong to think that evolution tends to favor traits beneficial to groups. It does no such thing.[/quote]
Double, you are wrong beyond belief on this matter. Evolution happens ON A POPULATION LEVEL!!! Take any textbook you want and look it up. No biologist (and I am one) is going to talk to another about “individual evolution” because such as thing DOES NOT EXIST (except for epigenetics which is new and way beyond the scope of this conversation)!!!
I cannot believe such a gross misunderstanding of evolution is possible. Evolution favors traits beneficial to population survival and hence the individuals that bare those traits have the most reproductive success, which is measured by number of genes found many, many generations down the line, not just one. These individuals are favored because they benefit the group .
My head is going to explode.
For example: your lion analogy is a good example of gene flow. A stronger male lion came into the group, wiped out the weaker genes of the previous male, and provided stronger genes for the group. The new male genes make the entire group stronger, which gives the group better reproductive success. [/quote]
No-
Infanticide happens when the tenure of the Alpha Male is likely to be shorter than the time needed to rear offspring.
The health of the species has nothing to do with it.
Also, propose one mechanism, through which evolution could work on a population level. Becaaause the main competitor of lion genes are…other lion genes.
<---- is on lesson 3 of the video Kamui posted.
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s the underlying thing driving the eugenics crap in here. And it applies to the Uganda thread, too. The species will survive DS children, abortion or not. It’s nonsense to come up with some ‘survival’ argument. The real impetus here is that someone has decided HOW humanity should survive.
They have made value judgments, including, one that excludes the full human worth of the those with Down Syndrome, in order to concoct some goal for a more perfect race of man. This is scientism. And it is ugly. [/quote]
And on the inverse you have decided for other people what they are enslaved to. In bringing these children into the world you leave them as a burden to those of us who do not want to care for them. That is wrong.[/quote]
No, I would unapologetically make that decision for others–we do not deliberately kill an innocent human being. Ever. Not left to the individuals, not left to the states. I don’t leave my life up to the whim of an individual or state, so I don’t here.
I’m just curious: how many here have taken college level biology courses? I’d recommend that everyone try a few at least.
Orion: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/shortmed/nelson/sickle.html
To summarize, sickle-cell anemia in dominant cases (ii) kills the individual. However, in recessive cases (Ii) it offers protection from malaria. What is bad for the dominant case is actually good for the population, hence sickle-cell anemia persists in areas where malaria is more wide-spread, but is decreasing where it isn’t.
Also, propose one mechanism, through which evolution could work on a population level. Becaaause the main competitor of lion genes are…other lion genes. >>> So you don’t understand why this competition between individuals benefits the population?
"Infanticide happens when the tenure of the Alpha Male is likely to be shorter than the time needed to rear offspring. " And why is the tenure going to be shorter? Because other males are taking over. No shit.
Kamui- “Abortion rates litteraly exploded when we stopped trying these. So it seems that, during centuries, the fear of being prosecuted and/or socially condemned has been somehow stronger than the hardwired ‘fear of not being able to survive’ with a baby.” Who knows? Maybe the reason we have been arguing all this time about whether or not it should be legal is because we’re running into an over-population problem and need a new biological explanation for a different set of population ethics. I strongly suspect this is also why there’s so much debate surrounding “women’s roles”.
Doubleduce- Do you know what a population is? The word “Population” is interchangeable with “group” depending on what the group is that you’re talking about. Not all groups are populations, but you could call all populations a group.
Here’s the official definition from biology-online:
"Population-
A group of organisms of one species that interbreed and live in the same place at the same time (e.g. deer population). "